Description
Journal Entries
Choose ONLY one group of questions to answer for Journal 1:
-
Reading #1 Indian Tribes: A Continuing Quest for Survival, U.S Commission on Human Rights
1. What are some of the difference between American Indian civil rights movements and
the civil rights movements of other U.S. minorities?
2. Describe the racial factor that must be considered in the development of the civil rights
framework for American Indians.
3. What has been the consequence of racism toward American Indians, especially in terms
of the U.S. government?s treatment of and attitude toward American Indian
communities?
Traditional civil rights, as the phrase is used here, include those rights that are secured to individuals and are basic to the United States system of government. They include the right to vote and the right to equal treatment without discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, among others, in such areas as education, hous- ing, employment, public accommodations, and the administration of justice.In order to understand where American Indians stand today with respect to these rights, it is important to look at historical developments of the concept of Indian rights along with the civil rights movement in this country. The consideration given to these factors here will not be exhaustive, but rather a brief look at some of the events that are most necessary to a background understanding of this area.A basic and essential factor concerning American Indians is that the development of civil rights issues for them is in reverse order from other minorities in this country. Politically, other minorities started with nothing and attempted to obtain a voice in the existing economic and political structure. Indians started with everything and have gradually lost much of what they had to an advancing alien civilization. Other minorities have had no separate governmental institutions. Their goal primarily has been and continues to be to make the existing system involve them and work for them. Indian tribes have always been separate political entities interested in maintaining their own institutions and beliefs. Their goal has been to prevent the dismantling of their own systems. So while other minorities have sought integration into the larger society, much of Indian society is motivated to retain its political and cultural separateness.Although at the beginning of the colonization process Indian nations were more numerous and better adapted to survival on this continent than the European set- tlers, these advantages were quickly lost. The colonization period saw the rapid ex- pansion of non-Indian communities in numbers and territory covered and a shift in the balance of strength from Indian to non-Indian communities and governments. The extent to which Indians intermingled with non-Indian society varied by time period, geographical location, and the ability of natives and newcomers to get along with one another. As a general matter, however, Indians were viewed and treated as members of political entities that were not part of the United States. The Constitution acknowledges this by its separate provision regarding trade with the Indian tribes.1 Indian tribes today that have not been forcibly assimilated, extinguished, or legally terminated still consider themselves to be, and are viewed in American law, as sepa- rate political units.Indian Tribes: A Continuing Quest for Survival, a report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, June 1981, p. 34. Reprinted by permission.477478 PART VII How It Happened: Race and Gender Issues in U.S. Law The Racial FactorAn important element in the development of civil rights for American Indians today goes beyond their legal and political status to include the way they have been viewed racially. Since colonial times Indians have been viewed as an ?inferior race?; some- times this view is condescendingly positive?the romanticized noble savage?at other times this view is hostile?the vicious savage?at all times the view is racist. All things Indian are viewed as inherently inferior to their counterparts in the white European tradition. Strong racist statements have appeared in congressional debates, Presidential policy announcements, court decisions, and other authoritative public utterances. This racism has served to justify a view now repudiated, but which still lingers in the public mind, that Indians are not entitled to the same legal rights as others in this country. In some cases, racism has been coupled with apparently benevolent motives, to ?civilize? the ?savages,? to teach them Christian principles. In other cases, the racism has been coupled with greed; Indians were ?removed? to distant locations to prevent them from standing in the way of the development of the new Western civilization. At one extreme the concept of inferior status of Indians was used to justify genocide; at the other, apparently benevolent side, the attempt was to assimilate them into the dominant society. Whatever the rationale or motive, whether rooted in voluntary efforts or coercion, the common denominator has been the belief that Indian society is an inferior lifestyle.It sprang from a conviction that native people were a lower grade of humanity for whom the accepted cannons [sic] of respect need not apply; one did not debase oneself by ruining a native person. At times, this conviction was stated explicitly by men in public office, but whether expressed or not, it generated decision and action.2Early assimilationists like Thomas Jefferson proceeded from this assumption with benevolent designs.Thus, even as they acknowledged a degree of political autonomy in the tribes, their conviction of the natives? cultural inferiority led them to interfere in their social, reli- gious, and economic practices. Federal agents to the tribes not only negotiated treaties and tendered payments; they pressured husbands to take up the plow and wives to learn to spin. The more conscientious agents offered gratuitous lectures on the virtues of monogamy, industry, and temperance.The same underlying assumption provided the basis for Andrew Jackson?s atti- tude. ?I have long viewed treaties with the Indians an absurdity not to be reconciled to the principles of our government,? he said. As President he refused to enforce the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding Cherokee tribal autonomy, and he had a prominent role in the forced removal of the Cherokees from Georgia and the appropriation of their land by white settlers. Other eastern tribes met a similar fate under the Indian Removal Act of 1830.3Another Federal Indian land policy, enacted at the end of the 19th century and followed until 1934, that shows the virulent effect of racist assumptions was the al- lotment of land parcels to individual Indians as a replacement for tribal ownership.1 U.S. Commission on Human Rights / Indian Tribes 479Many proponents of the policy were considered ?friends of the Indians,? and they argued that the attributes of individual land ownership would have a great civilizing and assimilating effect on American Indians. This action, undertaken for the benefit of the Indians, was accomplished without consulting them. Had Congress heeded the views of the purported beneficiaries of this policy, allotment might not have been adopted. Representatives of 19 tribes met in Oklahoma and unanimously opposed the legislation, recognizing the destructive effect it would have upon Indian culture and the land base itself, which was reduced by 90 million acres in 45 years.An important principle established by the allotment policy was that the Indian form of land ownership was not ?civilized,? and so it was the right of the Government to invalidate that form. It is curious that the principle of the right to own property in conglomerate form for the benefit of those with a shareholder?s undivided interest in the whole was a basis of the American corporate system, then developing in strength. Yet a similar form of ownership when practiced by Indians was viewed as a hallmark of savagery. Whatever the explanation for this double standard, the allotment policy rein- forced the notion that Indians were somehow inferior, that non-Indians in power knew what was best for them, and that these suppositions justified the assertion that non- Indians had the power and authority to interfere with the basic right to own property.Religion is another area in which non-Indians have felt justified in interfering with Indian beliefs. The intent to civilize the natives of this continent included a determined effort to Christianize them. Despite the constitutional prohibition, Congress, begin- ning in 1819, regularly appropriated funds for Christian missionary efforts. Christian goals were visibly aligned with Federal Indian policy in 1869 when a Board of Indian Commissioners was established by Congress under President Grant?s administration. Representative of the spectrum of Christian denominations, the independently wealthy members of the Board were charged by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to work for the ?humanization, civilization and Christianization of the Indians.? Officials of the Federal Indian Service were supposed to cooperate with this Board.The benevolent support of Christian missionary efforts stood in stark contrast to the Federal policy of suppressing tribal religions. Indian ceremonial behavior was misunderstood and suppressed by Indian agents. In 1892 the Commissioner of Indian Affairs established a regulation making it a criminal offense to engage in such ceremo- nies as the sun dance. The spread of the Ghost Dance religion, which promised salva- tion from the white man, was so frightening to the Federal Government that troops were called in to prevent it, even though the practice posed no threat to white settlers.The judiciary of the United States, though it has in many instances forthrightly interpreted the law to support Indian legal claims in the face of strong, sometimes violent opposition, has also lent support to the myth of Indian inferiority. For ex- ample, the United States Supreme Court in 1883, in recognizing the right of tribes to govern themselves, held that they had the exclusive authority to try Indians for criminal offenses committed against Indians. In describing its reasons for refusing to find jurisdiction in a non-Indian court in such cases, the Supreme Court said:It [the non-Indian court] tries them, not by their peers, nor by the customs of their people, nor the law of their land, but by superiors of a different race, according to the480 PART VII How It Happened: Race and Gender Issues in U.S. Lawlaw of a social state of which they have an imperfect conception, and which is opposed to the traditions of their history, to the habits of their lives, to the strongest prejudices of their savage nature; one which measures the red man?s revenge by the maxims of the white man?s morality.4 (emphasis added)In recognizing the power of the United States Government to determine the right of Indians to occupy their lands, the Supreme Court expressed the good faith of the country in such matters with these words: ?the United States will be governed by such considerations of justice as will control a Christian people in their treatment of an ignorant and dependent race.?5Another example of racist stereotyping to be found in the courts is this example from the Supreme Court of Washington State:The Indian was a child, and a dangerous child, of nature, to be both protected and restrained. . . . True, arrangements took the form of treaty and of terms like ?cede,? ?re- linquish,? ?reserve.? But never were these agreements between equals . . . [but rather] that ?between a superior and an inferior.?6This reasoning, based on racism, has supported the view that Indians are wards of the Government who need the protection and assistance of Federal agencies and it is the Government?s obligation to recreate their governments, conforming them to a non-Indian model, to establish their priorities, and to make or approve their deci- sions for them.Indian education policies have often been examples of the Federal Government having determined what is ?best? for Indians. Having judged that assimilation could be promoted through the indoctrination process of white schools, the Federal Gov- ernment began investing in Indian education. Following the model established by army officer Richard Pratt in 1879, boarding schools were established where Indian children were separated from the influences of tribal and home life. The boarding schools tried to teach Indians skills and trades that would be useful in white society, utilizing stern disciplinary measures to force assimilation. The tactics used are within memory of today?s generation of tribal leaders who recall the policy of deterring communication in native languages. ?I remember being punished many times for . . . singing one Navajo song, or a Navajo word slipping out of my tongue just in an un- planned way, but I was punished for it.?Federal education was made compulsory, and the policy was applied to tribes that had sophisticated school systems of their own as well as to tribes that really needed assistance to establish educational systems. The ability of the tribal school to educate was not relevant, given that the overriding goal was assimilation rather than education.Racism in Indian affairs has not been sanctioned recently by political or religious leaders or other leaders in American society. In fact, public pronouncements over the last several decades have lamented past evils and poor treatment of Indians.7 The virulent public expressions of other eras characterizing Indians as ?children? or ?savages? are not now acceptable modes of public expression. Public policy today is a commitment to Indian self-determination. Numerous actions of Congress and the executive branch give evidence of a more positive era for Indian policy.8 Beneath1 U.S. Commission on Human Rights / Indian Tribes 481the surface, however, the effects of centuries of racism still persist. The attitudes of the public, of State and local officials, and of Federal policymakers do not always live up to the positive pronouncements of official policy. Some decisions today are perceived as being made on the basis of precedents mired in the racism and greed of another era. Perhaps more important, the legacy of racism permeates behavior and that behavior creates classic civil rights violations. . . .
